Leading Disability Organizations: Delaying Digital Accessibility is Unacceptable

For Immediate Release: April 21, 2026

Contact: Jess Davidson, jdavidson@aapd.com; 202-465-5528

A broad coalition of disability rights organizations is expressing our unequivocal opposition: the Department of Justice’s Interim Final Rule extending the compliance deadline for the Title II digital accessibility rule is unacceptable and undermines timely access to digital services for people with disabilities.

Fourteen years after first beginning a rulemaking to establish standards for web accessibility, the Department of Justice issued a rule in 2024 under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, requiring state and local governments to ensure that their websites and mobile app content are accessible to people with disabilities. This rule did not establish a new obligation to make web content and mobile apps accessible. The ADA passed more than 35 years ago, and courts had already long held that website accessibility is mandated under the ADA. Rather, it clarified and detailed how, precisely, these governments must act in order to comply with this existing obligation. In doing so, it created clarity and transparency for all parties, increasing accessibility while simultaneously reducing liability risk. The rule took into account the concerns of state and local governments about steps they needed to take to comply, and in light of those concerns, provided lengthy periods–two years for larger entities and three years for smaller entities–before compliance was required.

The initial compliance deadline for large entities (serving populations greater than 50,000) was April 24, 2026. On April 20, the Department of Justice issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) extending this deadline to April 2027 for large entities and to April 2028 for smaller entities. The concerns that the Department now cites for extending the compliance deadlines are the same ones raised and fully considered in 2024. The IFR further signals the Department’s intent to make substantial revisions to the web accessibility rule. These actions undermine the significant efforts of organizations and advocates working to ensure accessible digital services. They also create confusion for entities actively working to meet the original April 2026 deadline and increase the costs associated with accessibility remediation. Most importantly, the delay prolongs the barriers that people with disabilities face in accessing essential services provided by state and local governments. Blind and deafblind people are routinely excluded from essential election websites because government platforms remain incompatible with screen readers, which can output digital content via speech or Braille. Deaf individuals also miss critical healthcare and public safety information when governments fail to provide content in accessible formats. Students with dyslexia or other cognitive or print disabilities are cut off from understanding school assignments, putting them at a structural disadvantage in academics. Disabled parents, too, struggle to help their children with homework when these platforms are inaccessible. These are only a few examples of how people with disabilities are excluded from essential government services when governments do not make their digital environments accessible.

The 2024 web accessibility rule was developed through extensive input from organizations and advocates. By contrast, the Department is using the IFR process to bypass standard notice-and-comment procedures to implement changes immediately upon publication. We do not agree that the administration has good cause having had over a year for a notice and comment process and issuing the IFR when large entities acting in good faith are moving to compliance in less than a week. This approach undermines the integrity of the rulemaking process and deprives disabled constituents of the opportunity to meaningfully raise concerns and objections. It also creates instability within the regulatory environment, which causes hesitation and delay on the part of those to whom the rules apply, further stymying progress.

We strongly oppose these changes and demand that the Department withdraw the Interim Final Rule and restore the original compliance deadlines. If the Administration wants to make changes to rules, they should use the notice and comment process in order to hear from impacted communities.